- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 10:40:40 -0400
- To: ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ <ADAM.GUASCH@EEOC.GOV>
- CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ wrote: > > >From the guidelines: > > 3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as > indentation. > [Priority 2] > For example, in HTML, use the Q and BLOCKQUOTE elements to markup > short and longer quotations, respectively. > > OK, not abusing BLOCKQUOTE makes sense. Using Q doesn't - the major browsers don't support it yet. A short quotation can be marked up as: > > blah blah blah "memorable quote" > > which doesn't meet checkpoint 3.7. I don't agree with your conclusion. There is no markup that is misused for formatting effects. > Or: > > blah blah blah <Q>memorable quote</Q> > > which is rendered in most browsers without any quotation marks. This is simply not acceptable in most cases. The third option is: > > blah blah blah <Q>"memorable quote"</Q> > > which would be rendered in an HTML 4.0 compliant browser as having two sets of quotation marks. > Also not acceptable. This was hotly debated in the HTML WG that produced HTML 4.0. The wording we came up with was the following: > Visual user agents must ensure that the content of the > Q element is rendered with delimiting quotation marks. Authors > should not put quotation marks at the beginning and end of > the content of a Q element. The idea was to be forward looking for this element. So, until user agents support proper rendering of Q, you shouldn't use it. > So, my choice is between broken rendering or non-compliance > For now, it's non-compliance. My conclusion: Don't use Q and you will be compliant. > Is anybody working on version 1.1 of the guidelines? Yes we are. Your continued comments are welcome. - Ian
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 1999 10:38:32 UTC